District's Illusory NPS Offer Found a FAPE Violation, But Residential Placement Denied

What Happened

Student was a 19-year-old young woman with autism and intellectual disability whose cognitive functioning remained at approximately a three-year-old level. She was primarily non-verbal and communicated using an augmentative communication device. She also engaged in significant self-injurious and aggressive behaviors, including hitting her ear repeatedly, head-banging, biting, and hitting others. Prior to the events in this case, the district had placed Student at a certified non-public school called the Speech and Language Development Center, where she made measurable progress on behavior, communication, and academic goals over several years. Despite that progress at school, Student's behaviors remained severe at home, and her parents grew increasingly concerned that gains made at school were not carrying over to the home environment.

Parents privately placed Student at Heartspring, a residential treatment center in Wichita, Kansas, in May 2016, and sought reimbursement from the district for the full cost of that placement — nearly $30,000 per month. The parties had previously settled a related due process case, with the district agreeing to reimburse educational expenses through June 30, 2016, and parents agreeing to waive all claims through that date. After the settlement expired, the district held an annual IEP meeting in April 2017. At that meeting, the district offered placement at Port View, a local non-public school — but Port View had no available space for Student and no confirmed timeline for when space might open. The district did not offer the Development Center (where Student had previously succeeded) and did not seek a release of information to explore whether Port View could actually serve Student.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected Parents' primary argument that Student required a residential treatment center placement to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The evidence showed that Student had made consistent behavioral and academic progress during her three years at the Development Center, but her behaviors actually increased — rather than decreased — during the 15 months she spent at Heartspring. The ALJ found that the parents' desire for a residential placement was driven largely by difficulties at home and concerns about their other child with disabilities, not by Student's educational needs at school. Under federal law, a district is not required to fund a placement chosen primarily for non-educational reasons or to maximize a student's potential — it need only offer a program reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

However, the ALJ found that the district did commit one clear procedural violation: the April 2017 IEP offered Port View as Student's placement even though Port View had no available space and the district could not have implemented the placement if Parents had accepted it. Under well-established Ninth Circuit law, a district cannot make an "illusory" placement offer — one that sounds real on paper but cannot actually be carried out. The district later corrected this by offering placement at Beacon, a different non-public school with confirmed availability, in a June 22, 2017 letter. Parents never signed the release of information needed to complete that placement, which the ALJ found was unreasonable on their part.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was ordered to reimburse Father for the educational portion only of Student's expenses at Heartspring for April, May, and June 2017 — the three-month window between the flawed IEP offer (April 7, 2017) and the district's corrected, legitimate offer (June 22, 2017). The total reimbursement ordered was $37,491.41, covering speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, psychological services, and the cost of a new communication device.
2. The district was not ordered to fund the residential portion of the Heartspring placement, as Student did not require a residential setting to access her education.
3. Mother's travel costs for two visits to Heartspring were denied.
4. All other relief requested by Parents — including full tuition reimbursement and prospective residential placement — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A placement offer that cannot actually be implemented is legally invalid. The district lost on this point because it named a school with no available space. Parents should always ask in writing whether the school being offered has a confirmed spot available for their child before the IEP is finalized.

2. Signing a prior settlement agreement that waives future claims is a serious legal step. Parents in this case waived their right to challenge the 2016 IEP as part of a settlement. Before signing any agreement that waives future rights, consult with a special education attorney — those waivers are enforceable.

3. Reimbursement for a private placement requires showing the placement was educationally necessary, not just beneficial at home. The ALJ emphasized that the IDEA addresses a child's educational needs, not the family's broader caregiving challenges. Evidence that behaviors worsened in the private placement significantly undermined the parents' case for full reimbursement.

4. Once a district makes a legitimate, specific placement offer, parents must engage with it in good faith. Here, the ALJ reduced the reimbursement award because Parents never signed the release of information to evaluate the corrected placement at Beacon. Refusing to cooperate with a district's reasonable attempts to find an appropriate placement can limit the remedies available to you.